asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has made an inquiry into the circumstances of the death of James Harris, an engine cleaner at the Paddington Station of the Great Western Railway, who was burnt to death in the "firebox" of an empty engine on Saturday the 8th instant, it being reported that Harris had been at work thirty-six hours without relief; that, exhausted with fatigue, he crept into the empty fire-box of the engine he had been cleaning, and fell asleep; soon after the stoker came to light the engine fire, and, not suspecting that the boy was there, threw a shovelful of blazing coal over him and burnt him to death?

in reply, said, the Board of Trade had not instituted an official inquiry; but there had been an inquiry before the coroner, resulting in a verdict of "accidental death." There was no doubt as to the truth of the statement contained in the hon. Gentleman's Question. In the course of the inquest it came out that the foreman of his department had failed in his duty in allowing James Harris to continue working dur- ing Friday night. He commenced work at 6 a.m., and continued till 4 p.m. on the following day, with an interval of only six hours' rest. It was but fair to the foreman to say that James Harris made a formal request to be permitted to continue working, to which the foreman thoughtlessly acceded. He was authorized by the directors of the Great Western Railway to express, in the strongest terms, their regret at that unfortunate occurrence, and to state that they had visited the conduct of the foreman with the severest condemnation, and that they trusted the steps they had taken would prevent the recurrence of any similar accident.

as one of the directors of the Great Western Railway, endorsed on behalf of the directors all that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) had said. They extremely regretted that unfortunate occurrence. The conduct of the foreman was in express and direct contravention of the orders of the company. The Board of Directors had met that day, and had ascertained that the circumstances were somewhat worse than had been stated, inasmuch as James Harris was a boy, and was under the ago at which he ought to have been employed, under the provisions of the Factory Act. The directors had summoned the foreman before them; but, before proceeding to deal with the matter, they received a notice from the Inspector of Factories that it was the intention of the Home Office to prosecute the company for a contravention of that Act. The directors thought the Inspector of Factories had done quite right; but pending the prosecution they could not proceed to deal with the case. He had nothing more to say but to express, on behalf of the directors, their unavailing regret that such a sad misfortune should have occurred.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What course he intends to pursue in order to give effect to the assurance given by the Government last Session that they would not continue the disallowance of Taxed Costs of Criminal Prosecutions?

in reply, said, he thought if the hon. Baronet would refer to the answer which he had made he would see that he had rather overstated the case. What he stated last July was that he hoped as soon as possible by legislation to find a substitute for the system which had created so much discontent; but that in the meantime care would be taken to apply the present system with as much elasticity and consideration for local interests as the public interests would permit. Since he gave that assurance, he hoped the business of the office had been conducted in that spirit. It was the intention of the Government to deal this Session with the question of a public prosecutor, whereby he hoped that difficult matter would be solved. A Bill would have been already introduced, had not the Government desired to have the benefit of the advice and assistance of the Judicature Commission on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When Her Majesty will be advised to issue an Order in Council under the Local Courts of Record Act of last Session?

in reply, said, certain applications for Orders under the Act were under the consideration of the proper Department, but no decision had yet been arrived at with respect to any of them.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any foundation for a statement which has appeared in the public press to the effect that a mistake has been committed by the Foreign Office in the Russian negotiations by describing the Oxus as the northern boundary of Afghanistan, including the territories of Badakshan and Wakhan, it being alleged that those territories extended for some distance to the north of the Oxus?

Before the boundary in question was agreed upon, Lord Granville consulted the India Office, and the line of the Oxus was deliberately adopted as the right line, on the authority of Sir Henry Rawlinson, perhaps the best authority in England on these little known countries; and the advice of Sir Henry Rawlinson was entirely concurred in by the Government of India, which was carefully consulted on the subject.

said, the noble Lord had not replied to his Question. Lord Granville in his despatch said that the line of the Oxus formed the northern boundary of the territories of Afghanistan. He wished to know whether the noble Lord was prepared to assure the House that no territories belonging to Afghanistan overlapped the boundaries fixed in the Correspondence between the British and Russian Governments?

I apprehend, Sir, that the reply I gave to my hon. Friend's Question was sufficiently explicit. My noble Friend Lord Granville does not believe that the Foreign Office committed any mistake in indicating the boundary alluded to in the despatch of Prince Gortchakoff. But, with the permission of the House, I will refer to the particular boundary mentioned by the Secretary of State for India in "another place." My noble Friend the Secretary for India said, in reply to the Duke of Somerset—

"I am obliged to my noble Friend fur patting his Question, because undoubtedly there has been an impression—I will not say in the pal die mind, but in the mind of some writers in the press—that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in indicating the boundaries of the two Provinces of Badakshan and Wakhan, has made a geographical error. Now, I am bound to say that if the Foreign Office had made any error in the matter, they would have been led into it by the India Office; because, of course, the Foreign Office applied to us for information. But I am happy to assure my noble Friend that, as far as I can understand, no error has been committed. A very careful memorandum on the frontier of those Provinces was drawn at the India Office from maps and most authentic information furnished by Sir Henry Rawlinson, who, besides being a most distinguished member of our Council, is also President of the Royal Geographical Society. That memorandum was sent out to India, and there it was discussed and considered by Lord Mayo. It was sent home in a despatch, drawn up, I am sorry to say, too late to receive his signature; but it was signed by Lord Napier after the noble Earl's death. That despatch entirely approves the line drawn by Sir Henry Rawlinson, which follows the Oxus up to a point where it branches into two comparatively small streams—one coming down to the Hindoo Koosh, and the other to a lake. The original intention was to adopt the southern branch, running down to the Hindoo Koosh; but there are a very considerable number of villages on both sides of the stream; and by Sir Henry Rawlinson's advice the right hand branch in the direction of the lake, beyond which there are no villages and no inhabited country, was taken. That boundary was fully assented to by the Government of India; and I have every reason to believe it is perfectly correct."

I hope the House, after that statement, fortified by the high authority of Sir Henry Rawlinson, will be of opinion that Lord Granville and the Foreign Office have made no mistake in the matter.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What interpretation Her Majesty's Government put upon the Despatch of Prince Gortchakow of January 19 old style (31 new style), in which it is stated that the Russian Government accepts the frontier line of Afghanistan as laid down by England, because we have engaged to insist on Shere Ali giving up all measures of aggression or further conquest, and that the Russian Government see in this assurance a real guarantee for the maintenance of peace; and, whether Her Majesty's Government accepts the view of Prince Gortchakow that we have thus guaranteed the peaceful attitude of Afghanistan?

The interpretation put by Her Majesty's Government upon the despatch of Prince Gortchakow of January 19 old style (31 new style) and his views is, that it appears to be in accordance with Lord Granville's despatch of January 24, 1873, quoted by Prince Gortchakow, in which it is stated—

"That Her Majesty's Government will not fail to impress upon the Ameer in the strongest terms the advantages which are given to him in the recognition by Great Britain and Russia of the boundaries which he claims, and of the consequent obligation upon him to abstain from any aggression on his part; and Her Majesty's Government will continue to exercise their influence in the same direction."

Prince Gortchakow appears to understand, as it was intended, that we should continue the exercise of our influence, which the Prince thinks will be sufficient for the purpose.

asked, If the noble Lord would lay upon the Table the answer to Prince Gortchakow?

replied that he had already stated that the Papers would be produced. When they were upon the Table, if the hon. Gentleman was not satisfied, perhaps he would kindly repeat his Question.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table the Correspondence between the officials in Belfast and Dublin Castle during the progress of the recent inquest at Holywood on the bodies of Isabella Ker and Jane Toner?

in reply, said, he was sorry that he had not had an opportunity of taking the opinion of the Attorney General for Ireland upon this question, as that functionary had been occupied for several days past in conducting the Galway prosecutions. He hoped, however, to be able to inform the hon. Gentleman very shortly whether the Correspondence on the subject for which he asked, or any part of it, could be given. It was extremely voluminous, and he would be glad if the hon. Gentleman would inform him what portions of it he desired to have produced.

said, he would repeat his Question on Monday.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If it be true that the Government have directed the Attorney General of Hong Kong to prosecute a coolie named Kwok-a-Sing on a charge which had already been heard and decided by the Chief Justice of Hong Kong, who in an elaborate judgment had declared that Kwok-a-Sing was entirely innocent of the crime with which he was charged, and that he had committed no offence whatever against the Laws of the British Empire?

in reply, said, that the coolie in question was a Chinese who had been shipped with other coolies at Macao. On the voyage the captain of the vessel and several of the crew had been killed, and the coolie being a Chinese subject, the Chinese Government demanded his surrender in order that he might take his trial for murder. He was therefore arrested; but the Chief Justice of Hong Kong discharged him under a writ of Habeas Corpus, declaring that if he had committed any crime it was that of piracy, jure gentium, and that, in his opinion, no crime had been committed, because the coolies were practically slaves and had a right to try to free themselves. The Attorney General of Hong Kong, believing that, in the interests of justice, the charge of piracy should be investigated, had proceeded against the man on that charge, and he was again discharged under a writ of Habeas Corpus by the Chief Justice, and brought an action against the Attorney General, in which, however, he failed. The Attorney General received no instructions from home, but simply acted in the usual performance of his duties. The Government of Hong Kong was dissatisfied with the decision of the Chief Justice, and referred the matter home for consideration. The opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown had been taken upon it, and they pronounced it to be a proper subject of appeal to the Judical Committee of the Privy Council. Than appeal was now pending.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, When the publication of the Census, 1871, for England and Wales, will be completed?

in reply, said, that two volumes of the Census Returns had been already published, and that it was the fault of the printers if they had not been placed in the hands of hon. Members. The third volume, he regretted to say, was not yet completed, and would not be ready for some time.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the "Murillo" has been released by the Spanish authorities; and, if so, whether it is on account of its being proved that she had not been in collision with the "North-fleet," or on account of the owners having given security for any damages to which they may be found liable; and, if he is not in possession of positive information, whether he will state what steps he has taken to ascertain the grounds of the prevalent report on the subject; and, whether all Correspondence with the Spanish Government on this subject will be laid before Parliament?

Inquiries have been made of our Consul at Cadiz, and he reported yesterday to the Foreign Office that the Murillo was still under custody. The Correspondence respecting this vessel will eventually be laid before Parliament; but as the Spanish authorities are conducting an official investigation at the present moment, it would, I think, be premature to produce the Papers alluded to.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Government has instituted an inquiry into the action of the Coast Guard at Letter Mullen, county of Galway, in firing upon some unarmed men, whereby two at least were killed?

said, he had ascertained that an inquest had been held on the bodies of those men, but that the inquiry was not yet concluded. The resident magistrate had been directed to be present at the inquest, and also the constabulary officers. The case appeared to be undergoing full investigation, and it did not seem to him to be necessary to institute any further inquiries in the matter on the part of the Government; at all events, until the termination of the inquest.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When he intends to introduce the Bill for the abolition of the Second Judgeship in the Landed Estates Court in Ireland; and, whether he will object to lay upon the Table of the House, Copies of the Correspondence which has taken place on the subject between the Treasury and the Executive in Dublin, and the officials of the said Court? He wished to know, also, what course the noble Lord intends to take with reference to the Report of the Select Committee on the Law of Rating (Ireland)?

in reply, said, that the Bill for the abo- lition of the Second Judgeship in the Landed Estates Court was in preparation; but that he could not say when he would be able to lay it on the Table of the House. Whenever he introduced the Bill he would also lay the Correspondence on the subject on the Table. With respect to the other Question of the hon. Gentleman, he could only say that he had been in hopes that the labours of the Committee would have resulted in producing, if not complete unanimity, at all events some mitigation of the differences of opinion which existed on the question with which they had to deal. He, however, regretted to find that such had not been the case, and that these differences of opinion were by no means confined to one side of the House. It appeared, therefore, to the Government that to introduce a Bill on the subject during the present Session would lead to a very considerable expenditure of time, possibly, without any satisfactory result, not to mention the reception which such a measure might receive in" another place," which, under the circumstances he had just mentioned, was somewhat doubtful. The subject also appeared to be one which might be more properly dealt with whenever the general question of local taxation and local government in Ireland came to be considered as a whole—a time which, in his opinion, could not be very much longer delayed. That being so, it was not the intention of the Government to introduce any measure founded on the Report of the Committee. He might, however, add that, as he entirely concurred in that Report, he would deem it to be his duty to support the Bill dealing with the question which stood on the Paper for second reading that evening.

said, that before he put to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty the Questions of which he had given Notice, he must preface them by reading the following telegrams:—

"Lisbon, February 15.—Ex-King expected. The Italian squadron is expected here. English squadron expected. The English squadron has arrived, and has been placed at the disposal of King Amadeus.

"February 16 —Three more ships belonging to the British squadron have arrived at Lisbon,"

The Times supplemented that intelligence of February 15, with the information that two of the ships are the Hercules and the Agincourt, and adds that the Admiral has offered to convey the ex-King safely to Italy. Subsequent intelligence, he added, goes on to state that an Italian steamer has arrived at the service of the ex-King, and that a whole fleet of British ships has now arrived, which the Admiral has placed at the service of the ex-King. The Questions I have to ask are—What orders were issued by the Government for this sudden rendezvous of a British fleet in the Tagus? What is the number of ships assembled, and whether from the Mediterranean or other parts? And whether this naval demonstration of the British Government is intended as a protest against the establishment of the Spanish Republic, or as the commencement of a policy of interference in the affairs of the Peninsula? I wish also to ask whether, as reported in The Times of to-day from the speech of Senor Figueras in the Spanish Cortes, this whole fleet is merely" for the sake of the petty interests of a puny dynasty?"

My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has asked me to reply to the right hon. Baronet, and to inform him and the House that it was in consequence of a request conveyed to the Admiralty from the Foreign Office that a portion of the Channel squadron proceeded lately from Gibraltar to Lisbon; it was couched as follows:—

I may supplement what has been stated by my noble Friend by stating that the Channel fleet would, under ordinary circumstances, have been at Lisbon somewhere about the time when the King and Queen of Spain arrived there; but, in consequence of the despatch to the Admiralty from the Foreign Office, a special telegram was sent to Admiral Hornby, requesting him to hasten the arrival of the ships at Lisbon.

Is the whole fleet from the Mediterranean there?

Not the whole fleet at present. Only three of the principal vessels.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he can give the House any information confirmatory or contradictory of the report that one of the British Settlements on the Gambia has been lately attacked; if he has reason to believe our countrymen at Bathurst are adequately protected or organised to resist the attack alleged to be threatened; and, if so, how and to what extent; and, if the Government has sent or contemplates sending any assistance for the security of life and property?

in reply, said, that despatches were yesterday received from Mr. Pope Hennessey, the Administrator-in-Chief of the West African Settlements, stating that no attack had been made on any portion of those settlements, but that an attack had been threatened by the Mahomedans, who having defeated the Pagans, with whom they had for some time been fighting, many of the vanquished had taken refuge on British territory. The administrator was about to proceed to the Gambia with H.M.S. Rattlesnake, but proposed to take no more re-inforcements, especially as H.M.S. Decoy was already at Bathurst. As to defence, arms had been sent out last year, steps had been taken to organize a militia, and a small steamer was about to be sent out to the Gambia to patrol the river, which the Government believed would prove a most effectual defence. The French Governor of Senegal had most handsomely, unsolicited, also sent a ship of war to the Gambia.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the final arrangements have been made for the construction of the Breakwater at Colombo; if the Government have granted aid to the Colony on as favourable terms as have been conceded to the Harbour of Arbroath, and other works in this Country; when the works are to be commenced; and, if any estimate has been made of the period required to complete the Breakwater?

Sir, on the consent of the Ceylon Government, Sir John Code had been appointed consulting engineer to the work. Lord Kimberley was in communication with the Treasury as to the advance which the Colony desired to obtain from the Public Loan Commissioners. A detailed survey was being made, until the completion of which it was impossible to state the exact time for the commencement, or the probable time for the completion, of the work.

Sir, in rising to address the House on a Question of Privilege, I may say I wish to do so with the utmost diffidence and hesitation, and I should not venture to take the step I am now taking were it not that I am sure the House will extend to me, as a comparatively young Member, that patience and consideration which it has always shown on similar occasions. Did the matter to which I am about to direct attention affect simply and solely the honour of this House as a body, I should not have presumed to bring it under notice; there being hundreds of other hon. Members within these walls who are more fitted than myself to defend effectually and satisfactorily the honour of the House of Commons. But in the case to which I am about to refer not only has the honour of a section of the Members of this House been attacked—a section of which I am a Member—but, in addition to that, threats have been held out against them as to the consequences that would occur if they were to take part in the proceedings of this House. The statements and the threats to which I refer are made in a book which, being somewhat of a professional character, may not have been read by a number of hon. Members, and therefore it is that I have felt it to be my duty to bring this matter forward. I can assure the House that I feel in a peculiar manner the loss which the House has sustained in the person of the late Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) whose abilities and honour were so highly regarded by hon. Members, and more especially so by those connected with commerce, who were accustomed to look to him for guidance and support in all matters that affected mercantile interests. Now, this book which I am about to bring before the House is one which has been published this year. It bears the title of Our Seamen—An Appeal, and the name of the junior Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) is given as its author. It is dedicated "To the Lady gracious and kind, who, seeing a labourer working in the rain, sent him her rug to wrap about his shoulders." I do not know whether that dedication is "by permission" or not, for the book does not state. I shall ask you, Sir, to allow extracts from the book, which I have selected, to be read by the Clerk at the table. They commence at page 71 of the work.

The House is now in possession of the extract to which I allude, and I wish to assure the House that in entering upon this question I am not actuated by any personal or vindictive feeling. I have carefully read the book through more than once, and I have been unable to find any allusion which I could regard in any respect as a personal one. Had I found any insinuations against myself, I think I should have been able in justice to my own conscience to regard them with the contempt which I believed they deserved. But it is because I feel I am not personally alluded to that I venture to bring this matter before the House. The House ought to be aware that this book has been very largely circulated, copies have been sent to various public bodies and to a largo number of Members of this House. I have not been able to discover that any copy has been sent to any Member connected with the shipping interest. No one specially interested in the question has had a copy sent him; but I do not wish to dwell upon that, because this book has been got out with all the advantages of excellent printing, good paper, and strong language. It is not to be expected that an author would hinder the sale of his book by sending a copy of it to anyone who was likely to buy it. I am not going to occupy the time of the House by quoting a large portion of what has been read by the Clerk at the Table. A good deal of it applies, or may be supposed to apply, to two Members who have already taken steps to obtain a legal remedy for what is published, and I am not going to follow the hon. Member for Derby through his sensational language; such as, for instance, "I thought the man would have fainted," "sick with excitement and fear," "this man, with a face like that of a dead man," "dark and deadly-look," &c. These hon. Gentlemen have appealed to a Court of Law; and in a Court of Law they must obtain their redress. But there are several passages which apply more especially to the House as a collective body, and to a section of its Members also as a collective body. There is an extract to which I wish to call the special attention of the House—namely,

"You must remember large fortunes are being made by them; they are the most energetic and pushing men in the trade, and it should not be matter of surprise if three of them had even got into Parliament (remember Sadleir and Roupel were both in Parliament)."

Here we come to a definite charge against three Members of this House, who belong to a small section, numbering only six or seven persons. There are only six or seven professional shipowners in this House; and here is a strong and severe accusation against three of them. Two of them, as I have said, have gone to a Court of Law for their remedy; but we all know that Courts of Law are very tedious in their operation. We know it has been said that "the greater the truth the greater the libel, "yet the converse of that is also true, and there is no amount of inaccuracy of statement in which a clever man may not indulge without bringing himself under the operation of the law of libel. Therefore it was not to be expected that hon. Members who are not so distinctly alluded to by name should sit still for a length of time under the imputation which the hon. Member for Derby has cast upon them. The principal inconvenience which arises from the course which the hon. Member has taken is that, while he alludes to only three Members, every shipowning Member of the House has become liable to the suspicion that he is one of those three. I have myself heard the name of every shipowner in this House sug- gested as that of the third Member to whom the hon. Member alludes. I have heard every name except my own; and it is not for me to say whether when my back is turned my name may not have been mentioned also. Now, I do think that when these rumours are going about so extensively as not even to spare the memory of the dead, it is time some notice should be taken of them in this House. If the hon. Member for Derby had had the good fortune to have been a director of some large commercial establishment—say, a Director of the Bank of England—and had published that half of his colleagues on the Board were habitually insolvent, he would at once be called upon to justify the statement that he had made by giving the names of the parties to whom he had alluded, and would not be allowed to leave them waiting for a remedy in a Civil Court. I do not see why this House should be less jealous of the honour of its Members than any mercantile corporation would be. I know it may be said that the hon. Member has given Notice of a Motion for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into this matter, and that before that Royal Commission he is prepared to justify the charge he has made. But what is a Royal Commission? The hon. Member knows perfectly well that a Royal Commission has nothing to do with regard to any libellous statement which he or anyone else may make. And yet the hon. Member proposes to ask this House for a Royal Commission to suspend the law of libel and to enable him to scatter his insinuations broadcast over the land without incurring any responsibility for them. That this is not a mistaken view on my part will be seen at page 42 of his book. He there speaks copiously of "the terrible law of libel" as one of the things that prevents his bringing forward the facts he wishes. Now, I believe it is quite an exceptional thing for a man to make an ex parte statement, and then to ask for a Royal Commission to investigate its truth. We have had cases of Royal Commissions at Sheffield and elsewhere, but there has been always some preliminary investigation. There has been always some primâ facie evidence to show that crimes are general. Never has there been a case in which an hon. Member has published strong statements in a book, and then asked for the appointment of a Royal Commission to enable him to prove the truth of those statements. The real extract to which I wish to call attention is—

"Owing to the fact that two or three of what they call in the North the greatest sinners in the trade' having got into the House, it is there, and there only, that opposition to reform is to be expected, or is found."

Now, I would ask, what right has the hon. Member for Derby to bring such an accusation against this House? He does not pretend that these offences, the accusations of which are spread so widely around, are merely committed by hon. Members. He says they go on in all the ports of the country, and that it is a common crime that ought to be put down; and yet he says that this is the only place where opposition is to be found. The only inference which can be drawn from the remark of the hon. Member for Derby is that interest and private feeling have so much influence in this House, that in this House an opposition dares to raise its head which cannot venture to find utterance in any other public place in the kingdom. The next extract to which I shall call attention is of a more serious character, because if there is one thing which distinguishes this House more than any other constitutional Assembly in the world it is its jealousy with regard to the right of freedom of debate. From the highest to the lowest this House has always tried to shield its Members from any consequences which might arise from taking part with the utmost freedom in any debate. With this preface, let me now read what the hon. Gentleman says in his book—

"In 1871, when I brought in my Bill a second time, it was most anxiously debated by me with myself whether or no I should allude to those cases. Hoping to succeed without doing so, I did not allude to them in my opening speech, and, of course, was then precluded from doing so in my reply; and these two men actually took advantage of this omission to speak against the Bill, and put up another Member, who would, I am afraid, find it very embarrassing to answer some questions that might be put to him. (I recommend those gentlemen to be more discreet next Session, if they wish to preserve their incognito.)"

Now, what is the meaning of this "incognito?" It cannot be the incognito of these gentlemen as Members of this House, or as shipowners, because their names can be discovered by the register of every ship belonging to them in the country. But the incognito he threatens to drop is the fact of their being the men against whom he has brought serious and grave charges; and he threatens them that if they speak against his Motion he will expose them still fur her. If that is not a distinct threat against Members of this House, and a distinct interference with the liberty of debate, for one, confess that I am ignorant of the meaning of the English language. The crimes with which the hon. Member charges other hon. Members are too serious for any of us to hesitate to speak respecting them. We all feel that these crimes are most outrageous; that if they be true—if the hon. Member has the facts to justify these statements, he ought to have brought forward at once the names of the persons he accuses, and have taken the consequences. That would have been the honourable, courageous, and more manly course. But if he had not sufficient evidence upon which to make the charges, he should not say that very strong language might be used with regard to them, following up this statement by asking for a Royal Commission, under the shadow of which he might make further statements. I do not want to occupy the time of the House any longer. The hon. Member for Derby is a young Member of this House, and it may be that he has not calculated the full weight and effect of the expressions he has used. But I felt I should be wanting in respect for the dignity of this House, in respect for the character of the mercantile world, and in respect for my own honour, if I had not brought this subject before the House. I will now conclude with moving my Motion.

Mr. Speaker—In rising to address the House to-day, I do so under very considerable disadvantage, for, until they were read from the Table, I was not aware for what passages in my work I was to be called upon to answer. It is possible that had I had Notice of theme I might have examined the context and been able to show that the passages admitted of a modified construction. I do not, however, for one moment, wish to screen myself behind any ambiguity or mere form of words, and having consulted the highest authority, I am advised that I have committed an inadvertent offence against the House. Sir, I am deeply concerned that such should be the case—that any language of mine could possibly convey any meaning which could be deemed lacking in that high respect for the House to which alike its honourable traditions and its high character give it so just a title. I beg to assure you, Sir, and every hon. Member of this House, that nothing whatever could possibly have been further from my intention. As, however, it does appear possible that my meaning and intention may have been so far misunderstood, I have to offer to you and to the House the sincere expression of my regret that, in the earnestness with which I sought help for the helpless, coupled with my inexperience as a Member, I should have left anyone room to doubt that for the House I entertain, and ever have entertained, feelings of the very highest respect. For my most unintentional fault, I offer to you, Sir, and to the House, the most ample apology it is in my power to make; and I assure the House that to have become one of its Members I esteem, and ever shall esteem, to be the greatest honour and the highest distinction of my life.

I am sure that after the very proper speech to which we have just listened the House cannot desire that this matter should proceed any further. My hon. Friend behind me (Mr. T. E. Smith) has discharged what he thought a public duty in bringing this question before the House, and the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) has made the amplest apology which, as a Member of this House and as a gentleman, he could make. Any man may commit a great offence; but the real man is the man who makes the amende, and what the hon. Member has said to the House on this occasion has shown that the offence was unintentional, and it ought not to be remembered further by the House. Under these circumstances, I am sure my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to proceed further with this Motion, and will, in accordance with the general wish of the House, at once withdraw it.

I have already stated that I was not influenced by any personal or vindictive feeling in bringing this matter before the House; and after the full and ample apology which the hon. Member for Derby has made, I feel that I should only be acting in a manner contrary to my professions if I were to proceed further, and therefore I will withdraw the Motion.

I feel that every Member of the House is bound to accept the apology that has been made; but I believe that the House will think that, having consulted my legal advisers, I ought not to address the House upon the matter. Neither will I refute any of the assertions and allegations which have been apologised for by the hon. Member for Derby. But inasmuch as this House has always guarded the honour of its Members, however humble, I hope that the House will not consider the statements made by the hon. Member to be true because I have not refuted them. I should have been perfectly willing to do so if in the opinion of the House I ought; but if the House thinks that I ought to remain silent, I will readily submit to the feeling of the House.

I wished to say, before the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, that I quite agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Horsman) in thinking that, in the difficult circumstances of this case, the speech of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) has left it upon a footing on the whole fair and equitable. An issue is raised between himself and certain Members of this House. That issue is to be tried elsewhere. We must feel that my hon. Friend (Mr. Plimsoll) is in a position of difficulty with regard to them, and that they also are in a position of difficulty with respect to him. But the frank language in which my hon. Friend the Member for Derby has recognised and acknowledged the fact that he has—from the motives, doubtless, which he has described—been misled into the commission of a serious error, must make us feel, I think, that the House can ask for no more at his hands. I think my right hon. Friend expressed the general feeling of the House when he said that it is not necessary to proceed with the Motion.

in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was essentially one of details, and before explaining what he hoped would complete the measures necessary for the supervision of the criminal classes in this country, he might review shortly the legislation which had been passed on the subject. Just 20 years ago, transportation was abandoned with reference to Tasmania:—it was continued to Western Australia, but on a very reduced scale. The Act of 1853, which established penal servitude as a partial substitute for transportation, was amended in 1857; and in 1864, after inquiry by a Royal Commission, an Act was passed which was intended to preserve society from the results of liberating in this country a vast number of criminals who up to that time had been draughted to the colonies. The necessity of the case would be apparent from a review of the enormous number of criminals transported during the period between the years 1830 and 1852. From 1830 to 1839 no less than 41,081 were transported—an average of 4,108 each year; from 1840 to 1849 the number was 32,509, or an average of 3,250; from 1850 to 1852 the number was 8,555, or an average of 2,851. The alarm which the liberation in this country of criminals so numerous excited could not therefore be regarded as matter of surprise. The Penal Servitude Act provided for the liberation of prisoners before their sentence had fully expired, subject to certain conditions; and if those conditions were infringed they would be liable to detention in the convict prison for the full term of their original sentence. In 1867 transportation, which had been gradually diminished, altogether ceased, and it became evident that some new measures should be adopted to prevent an increase of crime, and the danger arising from such increase; and if his predecessor (Mr. G. Hardy) had remained in office, he had no doubt he would have felt it his duty to introduce a measure similar to that which was then proposed. In 1869 the Habitual Criminals Act was passed mainly with the object of speedily arresting those who, having been liberated from gaol, had returned to a life of crime. Its operation had been carefully studied, and many persons having experience in such matters had reported favourably of it; numerous amendments, however, had been suggested, especially by those who had given attention to the reformation of criminals, and the Government had been urged to extend the principle of the measure in some respects. The Prevention of Crime Act, 1871, was the result. It introduced a system of real supervision not only over those who were under sentence of penal servitude, but it also enacted that those who had been more than twice convicted of grave offences should, upon changing their residence, report themselves to the police of the district they were leaving and to the police of the district to which they migrated; and it also deprived them of the presumption of innocence that other members of the community possessed. The results of this Act, as far as they could be ascertained, were detailed in a Paper presented to Parliament at the close of last Session, but it could not be said that the extraordinary diminution of crime then shown had been wholly caused by recent legislation; no doubt many causes had contributed to the result. The supply of criminals had been cut off by the reformatories and industrial schools; emigration had opened a field to those active spirits who would in too many cases have become criminal, and poverty also —that fruitful source of crime—had diminished; education also had no doubt done its part, and an improved system of police also had contributed to this beneficial result. The country was likewise very largely indebted to the Discharged Prisoner's Aid Society, which furnished assistance to those who, when discharged from prison, wished to lead good lives. There could be no question, however, that the increased powers given to the police had had a remarkable effect in diminishing crime. The life of a criminal who was under supervision was one of great danger and difficulty if he still pursued criminal courses—and, indeed, it was almost impossible for a known criminal to persist in the exercise of his vocation. The Government had, at the same time, the fullest evidence that these powers were not so exercised as to interfere with any criminal who desired to turn to an honest life. The Habitual Criminals Act did away with the necessity of a monthly report of himself by the criminal to the police, and this step was taken upon the advice of those who had practical experience of the subject. But after two years' trial a return to the former system was effected by the Prevention of Crimes Act, with this difference—that the license-holder, or person under supervision should not necessarily be obliged to report himself to the police, but might do so to any person approved by the police. This was done in order to diminish the risk of discovering, and thus interfering with, the employment of those who desired to live an honest life. The experience of two years justified these measures, and the diminution of crime which followed their enactment was attributed to them by Judges, Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, Chief Constables, and others engaged in the administration of justice. The greatest number of penal servitude sentences passed in one year was in 1862, when short sentences of three or four years were passed. In 1865, however, these short sentences were abolished, and the minimum sentence of five years substituted. For the purposes of comparison it would be expedient to take a later period. The following were the facts in reference to the diminution of crime during the last four years:—in 1869 there were 2,006 sentences of penal servitude passed; in 1870 the number was 1,788; in 1871 it was 1,628; and in 1872 it was 1,494, showing a reduction of 25 per cent in four years, that reduction being simultaneous with a very large increase of population. It might perhaps, however, be said that though the more serious cases had decreased in number, yet there was no proof that the number of criminal offences had decreased, and that the sentences to penal servitude had decreased in number because Judges could not now send to penal servitude for less than five years. But how was the fact? The statistics of the number of indictable crimes committed would probably be a more sure guide, but they gave the same result. For the year ending the 29th of September, 1869, the indictable crimes committed numbered 58,441, and for the year ending in 1872 the number was 44,191, showing a reduction of 24·3 per cent. The number of persons committed for trial during those years was in 1869, 19,827, which in 1872 fell to 15,164, showing a reduction of 23·5 per cent. In the metropolitan district the diminution of crime had been still more remarkable, and nowhere had the good effects of police supervision been more apparent. In the metropolitan district the decrease of indictable offences had been from 17,918 in 1869, to 12,894 in 1872—a reduction of 28·0 per cent—though there had probably been an increase in the population at the same time of 160,000. There was another very gratifying proof of the diminution of crime during this period. A most important duty of the Secretary of State for the Home Department was to provide for the custody of persons condemned to penal servitude. The cessation of transportation and the increased length of sentences had, of course, produced a sensible increase in the number of persons thus to be provided for, and estimates were transmitted to him from time to time with a view to the making of such provision. On a recent occasion, however, such had been the steady reduction of crime, that the Director of Prisons was able to make an estimate falling short by 700 of the number which he had formerly calculated as necessary to be provided for by those who questioned the diminution of crime. It had been said that concurrently with this decrease in the graver class of crimes there had been an increase in the lesser offences against the law. That, no doubt, was the case. It was a fact which experience demonstrated, that in times of prosperity there always was a decrease in the graver class of offences, while there was an increase in the less grave. He did not suppose that in any times, however prosperous, the number of habitual criminals was really diminished—these persons were usually much opposed to labour, and the mere existence of a greater demand for labourers would not, in all probability, induce them to work—but he had no doubt that times of prosperity had a very great effect in diminishing the number of those who fell into temptation under the pressure of want. Times of prosperity, however, led to much idleness and drunkenness, and therefore to an increase in the number of the minor offences. He felt bound to say that he thought the time was not far distant when Parliament should apply itself to the consideration how these classes of minor offences might best be diminished. We knew by experience that there were persons who had committed 20, 30, 40, and even 100 offences, and a great portion of whose lives was spent in prison. Many who had considered this subject were of opinion that it would be a matter worthy of the attention of Parliament whether accumulated punishments for some of those offences might not properly be inflicted upon habitual offenders. However, although not disinclined to concur in that view, that was not the subject now before the House, which was to amend the existing law with a view to the prevention of the more serious forms of crime and the supervision of criminals. He would now state what were the amendments to be proposed in the Bill, which to some might seem disproportionate to the importance of the facts to which he had just referred. These amendments were intended chiefly to remedy certain defects in the working of the Act of 1871. The Penal Servitude Act of 1864 provided certain punishments for a breach of the conditions set forth in the schedule. A clause in the Act gave the Secretary of State power from time to time to append to the license to be at large, other conditions as well, but did not provide that the punishments named in the Act should follow the breach of the new conditions. The effect of one of the principal clauses contained in the Bill was to provide that the breach of the new conditions which might be imposed by the Secretary of State should be followed by the same consequences as a breach of the conditions specially mentioned in the Act of 1864. The clause gave further effect to the provisions of the Act, by providing that the license might be forfeited for an offence committed before the expiration of the term of penal servitude, notwithstanding that there might not have been a conviction before the expiration of the license. Under the Penal Servitude Act, whenever the holder of a license committed an indictable offence, and was tried again, his license was forfeited, ipso facto; but the Judge was not under the necessity of reporting him to the Secretary of State. Whenever, on the other hand, the holder of a license was summarily convicted, it was incumbent on the magistrate to report this conviction to the Secretary of State, to whom was entrusted the power of further committing him for the unexpired portion of his sentence, or such less period as he might think proper. One of his proposed amendments remedied this discrepancy. The 5th clause was more important. He did not think it was a departure from the principle on which we had hitherto acted, though to some extent it was an enlargement of that principle. The House would remember that under the Prevention of Crimes Act certain offences were visited with certain exceptional consequences. Upon repeated convictions for certain offences there followed the loss of the presumption of innocence. In other words, where a person had been convicted of certain offences, and was found under suspicious circumstances—consorting with thieves, or in the neighbourhood of premises with apparently dishonest intentions—he was put on the defensive and bound to give a satisfactory explanation. In cases where the offence was more serious the Judge had the power of adding a sentence of supervision by the police, and that involved the necessity on the part of the prisoner of reporting himself monthly to the police, and also of reporting himself whenever he moved from one part of his district to another. The object of this clause was not to impose a sentence of supervision, but to withdraw the presumption of innocence from those who within seven years before the passing of the Prevention of Crime Act of 1871 might have been found guilty of the more important offences mentioned in that Act, although they had not been found guilty of any such offence since the passing of the Act. he hoped the House would accept that extension of the principle to which he referred. He believed it would be an advantage, not only to society, but to the offenders themselves, that every obstacle should be thrown in the way of their pursuing a criminal career. The 6th clause provided for an omission in the previous Penal Servitude Acts and the Acts for the Prevention of Crime. These Acts provided that the offender when released from gaol should report himself to the chief officer of police in the district, and also whenever he left the place; but they did not provide that before leaving the gaol he should report where he was going to, and that in case he did not go to the place which he announced as the place of his future residence he should be subject to punishment. This section supplied that omission. It also gave power to a constable to arrest, without warrant, any persons violating that regulation. The 8th clause extended to the children of male offenders the provision made with respect to the children of female prisoners —that is to say, where the father of a child apparently under 14 years of age had been committed under the Act, the child might be sent to an industrial school. This provision had worked well as regarded the children of female convicts, and there was no reason why it should not be extended to those of male convicts. The remaining clauses were of minor importance. He believed the Bill would provide an efficient system of supervision, one which would protect society and would also be to the advantage of the criminal. All must, as Christians and men, desire the reformation of the criminal classes, and, if possible, to enable them to return to society as honest men; they had a selfish interest in that reformation, for it made all the difference to society whether the convict was restored to freedom fitted for a life of industry and honesty, or whether he would continue his former courses. He hoped that this would be the last measure which it would be necessary to pass on this subject, and that sufficient experience had been gathered to justify him in undertaking to consolidate the five Penal Servitude Acts and the Act for the Prevention of Crime as amended by the present Bill. Nothing was more difficult or dangerous than to attempt the consolidation of Acts simultaneously with Amendments of them, but if this Bill passed and its principle received full approval, he should be ready at the earliest opportunity to introduce a measure consolidating all the Acts on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Bill be now read a second time.

complimented his right hon. Friend on his introduction and judicious administration of the Habitual Criminals Act, which, coupled with the operation of Reformatories and Industrial Schools, had led to so gratifying a decrease in crime, especially during the last two years. They must all feel much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his exertions to improve the criminal law, but at the same time he advised the House to be jealous of any extension of the system of police supervision—a system which exposed those who fell under the operation of the criminal law to greater hardships, and involved great dangers, which our forefathers would not have sanctioned; though he was not prepared to say that within its present limits its disadvantages had counterbalanced its advantages. After recommending that the delegation of authority by chief officers of police to other persons should be subject to the approval of the Homo Secretary, or to some other control, the hon. and learned Gentleman complained of the unintelligible way in which the Bill had been drawn, Section 2 referring loosely to "the Penal Servitude Acts or any of them," another section making a wrong reference, and other sections making no reference at all to the Acts which were dealt with. He urged that, were more pains taken in preparing, statutes, the course of business in the House would be more smoothly carried on, while the courts of justice would have much less difficulty in construing them. He suggested the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee, in order that it might come back in a more intelligible form, unless the Government was prepared to introduce carefully considered Amendments.

joined in the remonstrance of the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the difficulty of understanding the precise meaning of the clauses. He was about to make similar remonstrances as his hon. and learned Friend had done with respect to the way in which the provisions of the Bill had been drawn up. Several of those clauses, by their references to other Acts, would defy all reasonable construction—indeed, the Bill was one of the most unintelligible he had ever seen. He was aware that his right hon. Friend intended hereafter to consolidate all these measures, but in the meantime great complication and difficulty would exist. To refer to "licenses under all the Penal Servitude Acts or any of them," would oblige anyone to consult all these statutes—one of them passed nine years ago. In other cases it would be necessary to refer to Acts which were partly repealed, to see how much of them was repealed. This mode of drawing Bills was quite unreasonable. A certain form of words was given to be introduced into another Act, so that two volumes of the statutes would always have to be consulted. These might appear small criticisms, but it was desirable to avoid the recurrence of such comments as had been recently made by some of the Judges on certain statutes. Had his right hon. Friend drawn the Bill he would certainly have given it a more intelligible shape. As it was, no hon. Member could understand it without carefully consulting other statutes. In one clause reference was made to persons subject to supervision in pursuance of the Habitual Criminals Act, without mentioning the particular clause of that Act. [Mr. BRUCE explained that the object was that those under supervision should still remain so.] Clause 6 referred to sections in another Act, necessitating a reference thereto. He was anxious to prevent the measure, in its present shape, going before the learned Judges of the land, so that this House should not again expose itself to the remarks from the Judicial Bench which they had often heard made before—that the Bill had been drawn up with great carelessness, and its provisions were most ambiguous as to their real meaning. There was not a single piece of clear enactment in the Bill. It was all reference, to save the time of the draughtsman and increase the difficulties of the House in legislating and the Judges in interpreting the clauses in the Bill.

said, he had listened with great attention to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bruce), particularly as far as it related to his intentions for the future. He was glad attention had been called to the style in which this Bill was drawn, and he trusted means would be taken by the Government to give in a clear manner information desired by the House and by the Judges. With regard to the class of criminals constantly before the smaller Courts, he hoped the laws affecting them would be codified, and the penalties rendered cumulative.

said, he was sorry to find that the Government continued to follow the bad example of drawing Bills in such a manner that it required "handbooks," and other volumes, to assist in their interpretation. Draughtsmen considered the present mode a very neat way of drawing Bills, but it was sometimes done so neatly that the draughtsman did not always clearly know what he had done, and it was quite clear that when the Acts required interpretation the Judges found it almost impossible to do so satisfactorily. He saw no possible advantage in legislating in that manner, and in referring an unfortunate magistrate from one Act of Parliament to another in order to make out what the law was. Hardly an Act passed that did not sin in that way; and he really hoped that the Government would set an example by adopting better habits, so that they might have Acts passed which there was some chance of people understanding.

said, the Bill of 1871, in one of its clauses, bore hardly on dealers in old metals, and he wished to know whether that would be remedied in the present Bill or by a future measure?

said, the subject referred to by the last speaker would be dealt with in a separate Bill this Session. With regard to the chorus of disapprobation which they had heard against the draughtsmen, no doubt that Bill was a very favourable specimen for the opponents of those gentlemen to pitch upon, because, as his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bruce) had explained, that measure was intended to be preparatory to a consolidation Bill, which would afterwards be introduced. Its was essential, if they meant to consolidate the law, that the amendments made in it should be distinguished from its consolidation. That Bill had the advantage that in the clearest manner it drew attention to each particular amendment about to be made in the law which they wished to consolidate. If they were to adopt the principle that they were never to make any enactment by reference, but always to repeat the whole enactment, all their Bills would be a kind of "house that Jack built," and their legislation would be extremely cumbrous and inconvenient, as well as far more unintelligible to ordinary minds. Every one of the clauses in that Bill, however intricate they might seem, had been passed with the object of calling the attention of the House to the specific amendment of the Act which each clause was intended to carry out.

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that the object of the Bill was to assimilate the law of Ireland to that passed for England in 1865 with reference to the substitution of union for parochial rating. The anomalies and abuses which existed in Ireland in the question of rating had long been felt to require a remedy, and repeated attempts had been made to deal with the subject; and he had introduced a Bill on the same subject in 1869 when the Government promised to appoint a Committee to consider it, and in 1871 a Committee of this House reported in favour of union rating by a majority of 1, and so obvious was it that a Bill to carry it out would be accepted by that House that the expedient of talking it out was resorted to. He was fully persuaded that if the Government were fully aware of the state of public feeling on the subject they would at once bring in a measure of their own. Of all the borough Members for Munster, Leinster, and Connaught, the only one who opposed this Bill was the hon. Baronet (Sir George Colthurst), who had given Notice of his intention to move the rejection of it. The bulk of the resistance to the present measure came from the province of Ulster, where its effect would be least felt, though nearly one half of the borough Members gave it their support. In conclusion he moved the second reading of the Bill.

in seconding the Motion, said, that, according to the Report of the Select Committee which sat to consider this subject last year, there was no doubt that by the existing electoral system of rating in Ireland, the greatest possible injustice was done to the occupiers in towns. None of the large towns, which suffered so much under the present system of rating, had derived any advantage from the Land Act. It was only fair that Ireland should have the same advantages with regard to local rating as those possessed by England, and, no doubt, if the House would allow the second reading, the Act would be fully appreciated by Ireland.

said, he rose to move the rejection of the Bill, and he would assign three reasons for doing so. First, the majority of persons interested in the question—namely, the various Boards of Guardians in Ireland were against the proposed change; 117 had voted against it, 19 for it, and 30 had expressed no opinion. Second, the Bill would operate harshly towards proprietors who lived upon their estates, who had provided their labourers with proper dwellings, and who gave employment to the population. Third, the Bill would prevent, if not completely destroy, the local supervision now exercised by rural guardians, and make it a matter of little interest to them whether they attended their Boards at the time appointed for meeting, so that the town guardians would be left with almost absolute control over the rates. The Bill would also tend to increase the rates in the rural districts. But he had a still stronger objection—a measure involving so important a change should have been introduced by the Government and not by a private Member. The Government, he believed, had no Law Officers in the House connected with Ireland; he must, therefore, appeal to the noble Lord the Chief Secretary, and ask him why the rule he laid down the other night with reference to the Grand Jury Laws had not been observed in this case—namely, that the question should not be dealt with till the whole system of local taxation was discussed; for this was a matter connected with local taxation. The noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland had intimated his intention to support the Bill, but if the Government had approved of it they should have brought it in themselves. It was not for him to divine the reasons which had induced the Government to support the second reading of the Bill. The fact that the Report of the Committee in favour of the proposed change was carried by so narrow a majority should have prevented this, especially as the evidence given against the proposal vastly preponderated. The Prime Minister had told them that Ireland must now be governed according to Irish ideas; but a measure of this kind would neither satisfy the wants nor be in accordance with the wishes of Irish Members. He moved as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

in seconding the Amendment, observed that the hon. and learned Member for New Ross (Mr. M`Mahon) had said that all his efforts had been directed to the assimilation of the law of Ireland to that of England. The hon. and learned Member must have forgotten the Church Bill and the Land Bill, neither of which were in the direction of assimilation. He opposed the Bill because he believed that it would not only be financially detrimental to the rural classes who composed the large majority of the population, but also morally detrimental to all whom it would affect, and he was sanguine enough to hope to be able to substantiate these assertions to those who would try the case on its own merits, and by the test of common sense; but before entering into those matters, he thought that there were some circumstances connected with the proceedings of the Committee which investigated the law of rating which ought to be mentioned to the House. The Committee appointed in the Session of 1871 sat 21 days and examined 26 witnesses. The evidence was reported to the House on the 4th of August, and the Committee recommended that it should be re- appointed next Session. In 1872 another Committee—not the same—vas appointed. Before that time, the late hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory), who had been a member of the former Committee, and who was opposed to union rating, received well-earned promotion to a high position. An effort was made to get another Member appointed in his stead, but it failed; and, consequently, the opponents of union rating were, as the Committee was then constituted, placed in a minority of 1. Out of the 32 divisions which took place there were eight in which the supporters of this measure triumphed only by the casting vote of the Chairman. Had the proper balance of opinion which existed on the Committee, as constituted in 1871, been preserved, these eight divisions would have been carried the other way. The result was, that the Report of that Committee, carried by the narrowest majority, was, he believed, directly at variance with the evidence laid before it. He believed this Bill would be detrimental to the vast majority of the inhabitants of Ireland. Mr. Power, the Poor Law Commissioner, admitted that in the 3,428 electoral divisions in Ireland there were 2,405 whose rates would be increased by the operation of this Bill, and only 919 which would gain by it, and that out of the 919, there were only eight cases where any extreme instance of disproportionate inequality of rating existed. The moral effect of it would also be detrimental. It would take away the responsibility which now attached to proprietors, and which led them, in a great number of cases, to take a great interest in the welfare of the poor. It would paralyze an immense amount of private charity and private care which was bestowed upon the poor, and would thereby increase the local rates. The Bill endorsed the principle that one man should be liable for another man's debts, or, to use the old proverb, that they should rob Peter to pay Paul. The advocates of the measure asserted that landed proprietors had cleared their estates of paupers and driven them into the towns; and the hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill mentioned that that had been the case in the neighbourhood of New Ross. He (Mr. Kavanagh) was very well acquainted with the neighbourhood of New Ross, and he challenged the hon. Member to state a single instance as having occurred within the last 20 years. The main arguments in favour of union rating were based on vague charges and generalities such as the hon. Member haul adduced—in not one single case ha(I such been substantiated by the eviderice—the onus of proving a negative lay on those who opposed a change in the law, and when they proposed to do so by the production of witnesses, who were only too willing to be examined, from ail parts of the country, they were met by loud complaints of the length to which the inquiry would be protracted. Various other absurd reasons had been advanced in favour of union rating, it had been said that it would prevent prostitution and disloyalty, and cure chilblains! And even the argument as to assimilating the law with that of England was proved on examination to have no good foundation. The official witnesses who were produced to give evidence in favour of this assimilation, one and all admitted that no analogy existed between the Poor Law systems of the two countries. The bad effects of the Law of Settlement was a main and cogent reason urged in favour of union rating when it was adopted in England—no such law existed in Ireland—the close parish was another plea dwelt on with equal force. He would ask what similitude existed between an English parish and an Irish electoral division? Every witness proved that there was note. So far from such being the case, in many instances the area of a single Irish electoral division exceeded that of an entire English union. He further deprecated this plea of assimilation, firmly believing; that the adoption of union rating in England had been, in a great measure, the cause of the increased and increasing expenditure. A dispassionate review of the evidence given by Mr. Lambert before the Committee, would prove that, before the year 1862, the expenditure in England for the relief of the poor had been decreasing; that in that year the first step was taken towards union rating, and the increased expenditure began. In 1866, union rating, became law, and from that time to the present the increase had continued to a fearful extent, the yearly ratio of increase increasing too. It should also be remembered that union rating could at present be adopted by any union in Ireland at pleasure—this had been done in the instance of the Dunmanway Union; but the board, after a short trial, unani- mously returned to the former system. He hoped that the House would, judging this measure upon its own merits, consign it, fraught as he believed it to be with evil and injustice, to oblivion.

said, that he thought that the name of the Bill would have been sufficient to command the sympathy of the English part of the House, its object being to assimilate the law of Ireland on this subject to that of England. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had argued the question as if it were a matter of money, and appeared to contend that if a man paid a small sum hitherto he ought to continue to pay only a small sum. He, as an Irish gentleman, would prefer to argue the question on other grounds. He held it to be a very secondary consideration whether the rates were high or low as far as regarded the persons who paid them. But as it affected the labouring population, the matter was very different. It was there where the shoe pinched. There was a very general opinion that Ireland had prospered very much of late years. But, however true that might be of other classes in Ireland, it was not true of the labouring classes. The labouring man, no doubt, received higher wages, but he lived in hovels which were positively crumbling to the ground. In wealthy districts of Limerick, Tipperary, and Clare, after the rains of last year, the walls of the labourers' cottages were almost reduced to their original mud. As long as farmers were allowed to draw their labourers, from the towns they would never consent to put up cottages. He was lately talking with a farmer of his own district, who had two cottages vacant, and the farmer said—"If I opened my cottages to labourers I should soon have my rates doubled, whereas, by drawing labourers from the towns the rates will be never increased." The Government had done a great deal for many persons in Ireland, but they had done nothing for the labouring class. His hon. Friend who had last spoken (Mr. Kavanagh) laid much stress upon the great value of land near towns. But whether a man drew £1,000 a-year from comparatively few acres near a town or from many thousand acres in the coun- try made no difference, because it was the value, not the extent, of the land that he paid upon in each case. It had been urged that union rating would prevent the attendance of the Poor Law guardians at the boards, but his experience led him to believe that they would have the same class of guardians and a better attendance than at present. The Government last year held out a hope that they would take the question up this Session, and Irish Members knew that no Irish question had the slightest chance of passing that House unless it was taken up by Government. The question was of great interest to the agricultural population, and Government would justly incur a very considerable amount of anger from the people of Ireland if they neglected a question on which the condition of the labouring population so greatly depended. He could not but regret that a question in which the agricultural and labouring classes in Ireland were so deeply interested should have been left to be dealt with by a private Member.

in supporting the Bill, complained that no hon. Member of Her Majesty's Government thought it worth while to be present when a measure so important to Ireland was being discussed. His hon. Friend who had just spoken and himself were, in fact, heard by empty benches, for he believed there were but two or three English representatives, and not one Scotch Member present. He inferred from that fact that Irishmen must look elsewhere than to an English Parliament for that attention to the business of Ireland which the country required. The Bill was not a question between town and country; it was a matter of justice. It was not a question whether the unions of Ireland would be relieved of a few pence or a few shillings; but the question for the House was, whether it was just that certain unions in Ireland should have to pay so much as 5s. and 6s. in the pound, while electoral divisions coming closer to the towns, and separated from them by some mere imaginary boundary line should pay something like 10d. or 11d. With a view to ascertain how far union rating had worked beneficially in England, questions had been addressed to Mr. Gulsam, one of the most experienced Poor Law Inspectors in this country, who said that in England the effect of the Union Chargeability Act had been to decrease favouritism in the granting of allowances; that he knew of no instances of extravagance under the Act; and that the attendance of guardians had become more frequent. Now, in Ireland there was an equal number of ex-officio and of elected guardians and the elected guardians were elected by the ex-officio guardians. There were not more than a fourth of the elected guardians who were independent men. The House was told, as one of the reasons for opposing this measure, that the majority of the boards of guardians of Ireland had passed resolutions against union rating. Why, what else could they do, seeing ex-officio guardians almost to a man were opposed to it? The operation of the law of union rating in England had been to reduce the rates, while in Ireland the system of electoral divisions had been to raise them. He could not see how any hon. Member who read the evidence taken before the Select Committee could refrain from supporting the Bill. As an instance of how unjustly the present system operated in some instances, he mentioned that the Union of Skibbereen was valued at £45,408. There were 23 electoral divisions in it, and one of them—the electoral division of Skibbereen itself—was valued at a fifth of the amount at which the other 22 were valued, but it actually paid nearly as much as the other 22 put together. Could that state of things be tolerated? There were 83 paupers charged to the one electoral division of Skibbereen more than the number charged to the other 22 electoral divisions. The cost of maintaining the paupers in the whole 23 divisions was £1,829, but of that sum Skibbereen paid £974, leaving only £855 to be paid by the other divisions. It might be said that Skibbereen might have an unusually large proportion of poor, but that was not so, for of 99 paupers charged to the Skibbereen division, 32 were strangers who had been evicted from the neighbouring electoral divisions. There were several other unions in Ireland, the condition of which was exactly similar, while in some of them it was a great deal worse than in Skibbereen. In the Ennis Union, for instance, the valuation of the whole union was £72,744, and the valuation of the electoral division was £11,615. There were 434 paupers in the workhouse of the whole union, 105 being charged to the union at largo, and 329 to the electoral divisions. Of the 329, the number charged to the Ennis division was 201, leaving only 128 to the other 19 divisions, which had a valuation of £61,000. If hon. Members referred to the witnesses who had been examined at the inquiry that was instituted they would find that all the men who bore testimony to the value of union rating were men in whom the greatest confidence might be placed, while all who opposed it still admitted the existence of an injustice and the necessity of a remedy. The argument had been used that a larger rent was obtained for land near a town. But a larger rate was put upon the land, and the owner paid a rate according to its value. He thought he had proved his case that a cruel injustice was inflicted by the present state of the law; that Ireland was entitled to have extended to her the law by which the people of England were governed in regard to these matters; and that in every view of the case the House was called upon alike by wisdom, justice, and humanity to accept the Bill.

said, that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was not quite accurate in the figures he had quoted in reference to Skibbereen.

said, the figures he had quoted were froth the Returns of 1868, which were given in evidence before the Committee.

It had been stated in the evidence before the Committee that the number of paupers in the Skibbereen Union charged to that electoral division was 360 or 370, and the cost of maintaining them was said to be £900. He was happy to state that the latest Return showed a much better state of things—the number of indoor and outdoor paupers being only 273 and the cost of maintaining them £673. It was clear, therefore, that the condition of things in Skibbereen had been gradually bettering itself. The latest Returns throughout the whole of Ireland manifested a gradual amelioration in the extent of pauperism. It was said that the elected guardians were elected by the landlords, but the cumulative vote gave advantages to the tenant as well as the landlord. Motives of self-interest had been freely imputed to the landlord class in this matter, but he believed the landlords, like himself, regarded this subject simply with reference to the interests of the poor of Ireland. A proper system of Poor Law relief could not be carried out if the management in large districts were thrown into a sort of hotch-potch. In the whole of Ireland out of the 162 unions the total number of boards of guardians who had adopted resolutions against union rating was 120. The number of boards of guardians who adopted resolutions in favour of union rating was 16. These boards consisted of both owners and occupiers of the land, thus showing that the opinion of the educated classes was entirely against this question. They bad always insisted upon maintaining the individuality of interests in particular districts, which could not be observed if larger divisions were made. The general tendency of the present time was to induce labourers to remain in the country instead of attracting them to the towns. He entreated the House not to jump to the conclusion that this proposed change in the Irish law which had not perhaps worked unsatisfactorily in England, would work equally well in Ireland, in which country circumstances in reference to this matter were entirely different. In conclusion he gave notice that if the second reading of the Bill were carried he would, on its going into Committee, move a Resolution to the effect that the subject ought to be dealt with in a comprehensive and not in a partial manner.

believed that the measure could not be in better hands, but from some small experience in the House he felt how difficult it was for a private Member to pass a measure—and particularly an Irish one—even when it had the approval and the support of the Government of the day. He wished that this Bill had been introduced by the Government, and did not think they were excused for not taking it up by the fact that the larger subject of local taxation in Ireland must soon be dealt with. The great tax in Ireland was the county cess, which was expended in an exceedingly unsatisfactory manner, and without the exercise of any control on their part. He considered the question of union rating quite ripe for legislation, and believed that the opinion of the people of Ireland was almost unanimous in its favour. The change proposed by the Bill was now urgently needed to remedy the injustice which was now being done, and it would be wise to anticipate ex- ceptional periods when, under the present system, the burden of increasing pauperism would become intolerable to the towns. It had been shown that any increase of pauperism which had occurred in England was not due to union rating. The pauperism of Ireland had been largely caused by those evictions by which the landowners got rid of their responsibilities and of their people at the same time, but the day had gone by for large evictions. This measure had been shown to be necessary; it had been adopted from necessity in England, and he hoped the House would not refuse to pass it because it was in private hands.

said, he thought the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen) had put the question on the right ground, for this question ought not to be discussed in relation to town or county, but in relation to the poor of Ireland, and then all the arguments against the second reading of this Bill would disappear. What was the ground of the opposition to the proposed arrangement? It was that the administrators of the law would not do their duty. Such an argument ought not to be allowed to defeat a measure of this kind. It was generally admitted by the opponents of the Bill that a grievance existed, for which some remedy was necessary. A rate in aid would be limited to the relief of only 72 electoral divisions, but the question arose who was to fix it, and whether it was to be spread from union to union, or from electoral division to electoral division. He had come to the conclusion, though unwillingly, that the only way of meeting the objection, and the only solution of the question was a union rating. There had, undoubtedly, been a vice in the formation of the Committee which sat on this subject, as, indeed, of all the Committees of that House. The Committee had been formed not for the purpose of solving a difficult question, or to ascertain independent opinion, but to decide the question by votes, and to have a Resolution come to by the casting vote of the Chairman. After such a Report it might have been expected that the Government would take up the subject; but considering its difficulty and the variety of opinions entertained upon it by Irish Members, it was not perhaps surprising that the noble Lord the Chief Secretary, with all his vigour and boldness on Irish questions, had shrunk from the task. The House then must decide it for themselves. Every step taken for the amendment of the Irish Poor Law had shown that the introduction of the electoral division system was wrong, and the remedies alp-plied had not met the evil. In the absence of any better remedy, he should support the second reading of the Bill.

said, that having had the honour to be Chairman of the Committee which inquired into this subject, and having given considerable attention to it, he felt the House would probably expect that he should say a few words before they came to a decision. Even if he had not been Chairman of the Committee, he could hardly have refrained from answering some things which had been stated in the course of this discussion. He had the honour to be the representative of the Local Government (Ireland) Board—formerly the Poor Law Commission—and he must frankly avow that he had been considerably influenced in the decision he had come to on this subject by the very strong opinion arrived at not only by Mr. Power, the Vice President of the Local Government Board, but, as he had informed him, by every Local Government Inspector and every official of that Board. That, in his opinion, was a very strong argument in favour of this Bill. Those gentlemen who had no personal interest, no feeling, on the subject, except that of the good administration of the law, had unanimously arrived at the conclusion in favour of union rating. No men had had better opportunities of forming an opinion and no men had formed a more decided one. For boldly and honestly expressing this they had been unfairly attacked by the hon. Member for Carlow who first spoke (Mr. Kavanagh), who had unintentionally misrepresented some of Mr. Power's evidence. The hon. Gentleman had imputed to Mr. Power a statement that because the large majority of the guardians were interested in the maintenance of the present system, no weight was to be attached to their evidence. What Mr. Power really said, and in which he himself entirely concurred, was that too much weight must not be attached to the resolutions of an immense majority of the guardians of unions in favour of electoral division rating. Now, 2,400 of the electoral divisions would be losers by the proposed change, while only 900 would gain by it, so that without imputing any improper personal motive, it was natural that the guardians representing the former should vote against the change. The hon. Gentleman had quoted part of the evidence of the only other official witness, Mr. O'Brien, the Poor Law Inspector, so as to leave the impression that he advocated the change as a means of enabling people to put their hands into others' pockets. Now, Mr. O'Brien said the very reverse of that, and it was most unfair to have thus misrepresented him. The fact was that he objected to the present system because guardians, instead of doing their duty as a board, allowed cases affecting one division only to be decided by the representatives of that division, owing to a latent feeling that it was not right to put their hands into other people's pockets; and he advocated a change which would supersede such considerations, by making the whole board put their hands into their own pockets. Like the hon. Gentleman who last spoke, he had arrived at a conclusion with some hesitation. He concurred in the principle that the area of taxation and of administration should be identical; and very peculiar circumstances, which did not exist in this case, would be necessary to set aside that principle. Were the guardians of each electoral division invested by law with the responsibility of the relief of the poor within it, much might be said for retaining small areas of taxation, but the law had vested that responsibility in the guardians for the whole union, and they ought not to relieve the union at large by charging all, or the greater part of the cost, on one division. It was admitted on all hands that the system placed undue pressure upon certain urban divisions, it being sometimes treble or quadruple that of the neighbouring rural division. All the Members of the Committee admitted that this grievance ought to be redressed, some of them suggesting a rate in aid, but it would be impossible either to lay down any fixed limit of rating at which a rate in aid should operate, or to provide for a variable limit, differing in different unions. As to evictions, no attempt was made to show any extensive evictions as having occurred from this or any other cause of late years, but the present system unquestionably tended to encourage the destruction of labourers' houses, and to discourage their erection. Probably, a largo majority of landlords would do what was best for their labourers, irrespective of their own advantage; but the law ought not to make it advantageous for a landlord to do what was injurious to his neighbouring towns, but under the present circumstances it was far more advantageous to the farmers that the labourers should not live in the rural districts, but in the neighbouring towns, so that in the event of their becoming chargeable to the poor rate the rural electoral district should escape the charge, which would be thrown on the towns. It had not been proved, though the attempt was made, that the law as it now stood had any such effect in the way of inducing a landlord to give the poor in his locality employment in order to keep them off the rates; and although he could not but respect that form of charity, he should still consider that legislation aiming avowedly at that object would be unsound in principle and objectionable in practice. Some Members of the Committee were shocked, indeed, at his assertion that employment given for the purpose of lessening the rates was given on an unsound and demoralizing principle, but he still maintained that it was not the business of the law to make it the landlord's interest to give employment as charity, this not being good for the landlord, for the country, or for the labourer. What the law ought to do was to give every encouragement to—or at least not to put any impediment in the way of—the labourer going where he was most wanted and taking his labour where it could be most profitably employed. The reduction of rates could only be effected by a vigilant supervision of the whole system, and not by merely removing the pauper from one electoral district to another. Another argument used against union rating was that it would promote inattention to their business on the part of the guardians. Now, a Return presented to the Committee showed that it would not be very easy to make any alteration for the worse in that respect in the present state of things, for the attendance of guardians, and especially of ex-officio guardians, as indicated by that Return, was extremely unsatisfactory. The system of union rating in England, which had now been in operation for some time, had not produced the results which some apprehended from it. No doubt the expenditure in this country had increased, but the cost of everything that was necessary for the maintenance of the pauper had increased in the last few years, and it was not fair to put down that increase to the introduction of union rating. As to the Government not having taken up that subject themselves, he had stated the reasons why, while cordially supporting both the Report of the Committee and the present Bill, they had refrained from doing so. He admitted that he had formed the opinion that this branch of the subject would most conveniently be dealt with in connection with the whole question; but, at the same time, there was no present probability of extensive legislation upon it. He could not admit that a reform of the Grand Jury Laws had anything in common with that measure. The present question was simply one of taxation, but the Grand Jury Laws also involved questions of local government and administration. It was not, however, without considerable regret that he had come to the conclusion that it was not the duty of the Government itself to deal with the matter this Session; but he had no hesitation in saying that they gave their best wishes and support to the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill.

said, his own tenure of office had been so brief that he never had an opportunity of going thoroughly into that question; but he much regretted that his noble Friend who had just sat down had not taken it up on the part of the Government. If the noble Lord had done that, and had brought to bear on the subject the responsibility of Government, the hesitation he felt on the matter would have been materially diminished. With himself, it would have been a great object to make the legislation of Ireland as similar as possible to that of England. But what was the way in which legislation of that kind had been dealt with in England? In the early part of the last 40 years he recollected the English Poor Law being debated there year by year. First, the measure was brought forward by one independent Member and then by another. Many in that House approved of the proposed alterations; but they were always rejected until the Government took them up on its own responsibility; and not till 1865 did the House consent to an alteration of the English Poor Law, as it at present exists, when it was proposed under that responsibility; therefore, he could not but feel some difficulty in supporting a proposal like that contained in this Bill, seeing that it was in the hand of a private Member. It was not too much to exact from the Irish Government what they had exacted from the English Government under similar circumstances. The noble Lord opposite must, therefore, excuse him if he hesitated to support a measure which the Government, after taking so large a part in the preliminary stages—the noble Lord himself having acted as Chairman of the Committee—still declined to bring forward themselves. Affixed to the Report of the Committee was a Return showing the number of electoral divisions in each union in Ireland which would gain by the adoption of union rating and the number which would lose by it. From that Return, he found that in the province of Ulster 281 electoral divisions would gain and 875 would lose by the change. In Munster 216 would gain and 1,023 would lose; in Leinster 260 would gain and 940 would lose; and in Connaught 162 would gain and 595 would lose. Taking a summary of all the four provinces, the total number of electoral divisions that would gain by the change was 919, and those that would lose 3,433. That he knew was looking at the matter from a money point of view; but it afforded a strong reason why the Government had not taken up the subject, because it was clear that, under such circumstances, the feeling in Ireland must preponderate very much against union rating. Judging from the evidence which was before them, and which was all there was to guide them, he could only infer that a majority of Poor Law guardians and of their chairmen were in favour of electoral divisions rather than union divisions, and that without any reference to political feeling, for the evidence in favour of electoral divisions came as much from one party as from the other. Looking to the preponderance of the evidence in favour of electoral divisions, he thought they were justified in hesitating to give their assent to a Bill of this kind until the Government would undertake the charge of it on their own responsibility. The Opposition had a right to claim that Her Majesty's Government should on this subject adopt the course which was adopted with reference to England, and on their own responsibility propose the measure they thought best calculated to advance the interests of Ireland. He expressed his opinion only as an independent Member. If the measure were brought forward by the Irish Government, he might have had some hesitation in giving the vote he was about to give; but, under the circumstances, he felt justified in opposing the further progress of this Bill until Her Majesty's Government took the responsibility of it.

agreed in the observation that had been made in favour of the assimilation of the laws of England and Ireland. The industry of Ireland was not fairly represented in this House. There was no sympathy for the poor, and he was unable to discover on what ground the poor of Ireland were not supported in the same spirit as the poor of England. While the hon. Member for Cork was speaking, there were present nine English and Scotch Members, and eight Irish Members. The population of Ireland had been on the decline ever since the Union, and the land of Ireland did not pay for the poor as much per acre as the land of England, and this was owing to the Dublin Castle legislation being adverse to the true interests of the country. Proportionately, the Irish landlords ought to pay £2,400,000 for the support of the poor, whereas, in fact, they paid only £580,000; but while the landholders paid comparatively nothing to the poor rates, the struggling shopkeepers, merchants, and sailors contributed largely towards them, and the effect of this was to stamp down the poor. If there had been equality of laws, the landlords and agricultural interest of Ireland would not have escaped legislation. The tenants of Ireland, as a rule, paid no income tax, because only farms of £300 per annum were assessed; whereas every struggling tradesman had to pay the tax. The miserable Irish Government that we had dare not take up this subject, because it was afraid of the landed interest.

said, he was the only Englishman who had ventured, in the course of this debate, to speak for Ireland. The question appeared to him to be an Imperial one, and one of far more importance than it was generally regarded. It was a question beyond union rating. He knew a case where a landlord had refused to permit the erection of cottages lest an increase in the poor rates should arise, while from the next parish he received large emoluments. He wished to see the same law exist in England, Scotland, and Ireland. Union rating existed in England, and with great advantage. Why should not Ireland be similarly treated? The only practical way of dealing with the Home Rule question was to make the laws of Ireland similar to those of England. He supported the Bill.

said, he rejoiced that the question was one free from religious differences, and he hoped the House would look at it with the desire of doing that which was best for the Irish poor. No case had been as yet made out to change the law, which had hitherto worked so beneficially in Ireland. During the famine in Ireland the wants of the Irish people were relieved according to their exigencies. The laws should be made to meet the requirements of the country. It was said that the people of Ireland wanted a change; but where was this proved? Numerous unions had petitioned against this Bill; and those in favour of it were in number only 19. The proposed change, he believed, would be most unpopular in Ireland, and he could not understand those who advocated Home Rule for Ireland showing such an anxiety for slavish imitation of English example in this matter. He strongly opposed the Bill.

said, no attempt had been made to abolish the system of union rating which had been adopted in England, and if it worked well in England it ought to be extended to Ireland. He believed that this measure would facilitate the erection of improved dwellings for the poor in Ireland. He trusted that Parliament would not perpetuate in Ireland the exceptional and doubtful system of granting rates in aid. The more we assimilated the laws of England and those of Ireland, the less likely were we to expect complaints from the latter country.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary for Ireland had denied that the people of that country were in favour of this Bill. Now, the fact was that in Leinster, Munster, and Connaught there was almost absolute unanimity in favour of it. He hoped that when the Bill went into Committee the Government would undertake the charge of it.

moved—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies of the Memorandum on the frontier of the Badakshan and Wakhan provinces of Afghanistan drawn at the India Office from maps and information furnished by Sir Henry Rawlinson, together with the Despatch on the subject from the Government of India; and, of the sketch Map, showing the northern boundary of the Afghan territories, assented to by Government of India, and adopted by the Foreign Office."

The hon. Member said, that Lord Granville's despatch left the matter in a state of great ambiguity. It was upon the authority of Captain Wood and Captain Yule's book that he informed the House that the river Penjah flowed for 66 miles through the State of Wakhan, and that the ruby mines of Badakshan were on the right bank of that river, and therefore to the north of that tributary of the Oxus: and that, after leaving the ruby mines, to quote Colonel Yule's words—

"The Panja (or Penjah), running northwards, quits the field of our actual knowledge for a space of something like 170 miles. We know that it traverses the valley States of Shignan and Roshan, acknowledging the supremacy of Badakshan."

said, he was afraid it would not be in his power to assent to the Motion of his hon. Friend. With regard to the Memorandum of Sir Henry Rawlinson, of December, 1871, that document was considered by the Foreign Office and the India Office to be in the nature of a confidential document, and therefore could not be produced. If his hon. Friend referred to the despatch of the Governor General of India of May, 1871, the greater portion of it would be found in the Papers before Parliament. With regard to the map there was a difficulty, because, although the India Office had maps in their possession, they were not of an official character. That part of the country was very little known, for it had not been explored, and he could not present it to Parliament with the degree of authority which ought to attach to a document submitted by two Government Departments. He should, therefore, resist the Motion.

expressed a hope that Lord Granville would insist upon the definition of boundary contained in the despatch of the 17th of October.

was surprised at the refusal of the Government after the speech of Lord Granville in "another place."

said, he would not press the Motion against the feelings of the noble Lord; but he hoped, after the opinions expressed by two eminent Members, the noble Lord would further consider it, and give additional information on the subject. He should repeat the Question on Monday.